Follow up on Emerald Shark Attack

[drrich2]

Pot meet kettle?

Richard.

 

[Joneill]

I understand your point, but I can't help thinking one could argue there's no good reason for recreational diving beyond thrill seeking for divers and making money, if thrill seeking includes just plain fun. Kind of like some of us who don't cave dive may read accounts of cave diving fatalities & wonder what were they doing in there? What could possibly have been worth it? Yet many people find answers to these questions every year...in caves!

Richard.

I get that too, but I guess the difference is that responsible recreational diving should not involve "interacting" with animals in ways that are not "natural" - we should be pretty much just be careful observers. Feeding sharks (or any self-sufficient animal) is taking it to a very different (and unnecessary) level to me. Just my opinion...

 

[HalcyonDaze]

TO ME, that bucket that did not remain intact is a stand-in for Randy' s hand. I dont think sharks are viscious and intended to harm him. I think they are huge, wild, indiscriminate creatures who don't have proper etiquette! Give then food and they're going to eat it...the way THEY eat...

While feeding sharks is controversial, I think it's important to note that there is a better way to accomplish the feeding task besides showboating and doing it by hand.

Feeding methods are pretty much a judgment call for the operator. Some operators (such as in the Bahamas) wear a full-blown chain mail suit (given they're dealing with Caribbean reef sharks, that's probably a good idea - they make up for the smaller size by having a lot more moxie and they can move like lightning). Others will wear just a sleeve or gauntlet. Would those measures have at least minimized the damage Randy took? Probably, although now you also have to factor in conducting a deep dive while wearing additional weight (I believe a full chain suit is about 20 lbs negative; I imagine that would also penalize your dexterity and swimming speed).

Another option is to feed from a stick or short spear. That would be my preference for safety, although you would be advised to file down the tips to prevent any injuries to the shark's mouth. Randy has used that method as well as hand-feeding; I'm not sure if he has any reason for not always using a stick. The times I've fed sharks, that's what I've done - I'm not putting my hands near a wild animal's mouth if I can avoid it.

I know a few operators who use the bucket or "chum chopper" method; in some of those cases the operator doesn't even let the sharks get at the bait and just uses it to introduce scent in the water. Some say that attracts the sharks without giving them an actual food reward, but in general my experience is that they get really pushy when they can smell something but can't get at it. My last charter trip I did with another operator, they elected not to feed from the crate on that dive and the DM had her hands full with about a dozen adult lemon sharks that were on her like the Bumpus hounds. They knew damn well she had the goodies and wanted some.

As far as I'm concerned, if an operator has elected to feed sharks for a living, it's his or her call on the method used and personal risk taken - and regardless of method, there is a personal risk assumed and it should be acknowledged. Where I take a harder line is in regards to risks presented to the other divers, including ones who didn't sign up for a feeding charter but are diving the site off another boat.

 

[tilikum]

Pot meet kettle?

Richard.

The key difference is you are on the wrong side of biology and ecology.

 

[drrich2]

Says you. If you do some typical tourist diving, I imagine you burn through a considerable amount of fossil fuel in transport to a dive boat, more on the boat trip, jump in the water, swim around blowing bubbles & frightening lots of smaller creatures into scattering, disrupting their natural behavioral routines, and yet presumably you give your own practices a free pass, while taking it upon yourself to 'draw the line' in such a way that the unnatural disruption you cause is okay, but that some others do is 'wrong.' Then there's however much environmental damage is done by whatever garbage you produce in the course of daily living, as I imagine most of us do.

From an environmentalistic purist perspective, we're all on the wrong side of 'biology and ecology.' But what I've learned following a number of these shark feed debates is that some of what had historically been taken as 'common sense obvious' hasn't panned out in real world experience.

Richard.

 

[tilikum]

More from your spin zone, keep it coming you are on a roll.

 

[drrich2]

And you have resorted to trying to write off my points as 'spin,' whereas at least I have attempted to logically address your points, though I may disagree with them. There are a number of people on both sides of the shark feed diving controversy, with reasoned, logical arguments to make in support of their 'side,' and criticisms to level against the other. When one of us puts forth such a logical argument, another may challenge the logic. This back and forth is useful for expanding on the issues, and observers can make up their own minds. Mutually respectful debate from all sides is the best approach.

Richard.

 

[tilikum]

The problem is your side has zero logic, all you are doing is rationalizing your own selfish interactions with sharks that have already been demonstrated to be completely unnatural and likely detrimental.

 

[drrich2]

All scuba diving is 'completely unnatural' and to some extent 'likely detrimental' - see the recent 174 post The Observer Effect thread.

The large majority of recreational scuba diving is self-serving for the diver's pleasure.

It is not zero logic to learn from what's been discussed over time. Not so terribly long ago, sharks were depicted as near-mindless 'eating machines' driven into feeding frenzy by putting blood in the water, prone to tear into most anything smaller than themselves (at least that wasn't another shark). People suspected shark feeding might inhibit natural migration, and sharks conditioned to associate humans with food would start closely accosting, and likely outright attacking, humans in substantially higher numbers than historically noted.

So, what do trip reports, debates on the issue and such indicate?

1.) Sharks are smarter than historically given credit for.
2.) Sharks don't all switch into berserk frenzy when there's some blood in the water.
3.) They appear off-put by divers; absent food they often avoid us, and even with it, don't seem to recognize us as natural prey. Not indiscriminate.
4.) Research mentioned in other threads suggests we are not screwing up tiger shark migration.
5.) Despite the ready availability of human 'prey' both diving and at beaches, we don't see the Jaws movies getting re-enacted. There are stories of reef sharks, for example, coming in when they hear spear guns, or just when divers are around, but seems like if the tiger, bull & large great hammerhead sharks (maybe even lemon sharks) Randy's op. & others feed were prone to start attacking humans, there'd be a lot more deaths. Granted concerns have been raised amongst the spearfishing community.
6.) 'Monetizing' sharks can encourage conservation. Palau is known for this. Shark feed tourism is one form of monetizing sharks, raising their value.

Even if you don't find these points compelling, and continue to conclude that shark feed diving is ill-advised, that is not zero logic.

Richard.

 

[ronscuba]

Says you. If you do some typical tourist diving, I imagine you burn through a considerable amount of fossil fuel in transport to a dive boat, more on the boat trip, jump in the water, swim around blowing bubbles & frightening lots of smaller creatures into scattering, disrupting their natural behavioral routines, and yet presumably you give your own practices a free pass, while taking it upon yourself to 'draw the line' in such a way that the unnatural disruption you cause is okay, but that some others do is 'wrong.' Then there's however much environmental damage is done by whatever garbage you produce in the course of daily living, as I imagine most of us do.

From an environmentalistic purist perspective, we're all on the wrong side of 'biology and ecology.' But what I've learned following a number of these shark feed debates is that some of what had historically been taken as 'common sense obvious' hasn't panned out in real world experience.

Richard.

Regardless of my opinion on shark feeding, there is obviously a very big difference between what you wrote above vs. feeding sharks in regards to what is more unnatural.